By adamg on Thu, 09/20/2012 - 6:07pm Jump in with your thoughts. Neighborhoods: Topics: PoliticsFree tagging: 2012 elections, Scott Brown, US Senate, Elizabeth Warren Tweet WidgetFacebook Like Comments And here we go Geez - did he really bring up Geez - did he really bring up the Indian thing? Did he do a little war-dance around her while whooping while holding a tomahawk? And saying someone isn't a Cherokee because she doesn't look like one sounds a little infantile and desperate. It's like saying Scarlett Johansson can't be a Jew because she doesn't look like one. The Indian thing? No, Brown didn't bring it up. Keller, the moderator, brought it up. As the first question. Because Princess Scolds-All-Night still hasn't answered the question, months into this. And didn't answer it last night, either. So expect her to have to circle the wagons on it until she does. Points to Brown on the Travellers/Asbastos thing. And another non-answer from the Smartest Woman in the Room. Just saw it on YouTube. Just saw it on YouTube. Keller opened to Brown by saying 'each of your campaigns (referring to both Brown's and Warren's) has appeared to question the character of your opponent. Is your opponent's character an issue in this race?' So it could be argued that Keller gave him an opening, but Keller did not raise the 'Indian Issue' himself. Questionable Character 1. pretending you represent Massachusetts when you are clearly do not 2. offering to sell your daughters 3. Making bigoted statements about whether or not somebody "looks" like a minority to you (he still believes that Iron Eyes Coty was 100% native American, no doubt) Yeah, it would be really awful If one of the candidates made some comment about Indians having "high cheekbones"... Oh, wait. You are mad, hatter Brown was asked if Warren's character was to be questioned. He said "yes, look at the Native American issue". Contrast with Warren's response to the same question, "no, Scott's a nice guy" which forced Scott on response to stumble out "oh yeah, she's a nice woman too...but personnel records will tell us about her and Native Americans." If Brown had left the Native American nonsense with the childish Rovian crap, his answer would have been to acknowledge Warren is a good person just like she did for him and they would have moved on to issues, not attempted character assassination on made-up bullshit. To frame it as anything else is just absurdity. You should live in reality more often. You should also be more respectful of both her and Native Americans instead of exposing your racism using ignorant slurs. You should also learn how to spell asbestos. You should also learn the truth behind the lawsuit he mentioned before you go using it as an attack, because it is actually another example of how she was helping the victims. You see, if a company goes bankrupt as a result of having been sued for having injured a large number of victims, they have no obligation to pay the victims who sue them if they run out of money. So, Warren was arguing that Travellers, the insurance company covering the asbestos insulation company going bankrupt, should put up a large trust fund to cover paying victims for years to come. However, in doing so, Travellers should be allowed to consider the result final and not get sued any more for the same problem because the trust fund will handle any future claims. That was her involvement because she was an expert in bankruptcy law...not insurance law or civil injuries. She wasn't defending Travellers from the victims, she was arguing for their appropriate response to help victims AND Travellers resolve a beneficial solution for both groups. She left the case when that was settled. After her departure, Travellers pushed for a new solution that left whether they had to set up a trust fund in question, thus screwing the victims. That had nothing to do with her involvement. Now, try to explain that in a 30s rebuttal on TV. That's why Warren didn't respond well. It was a classic case of putting a Big Lie out there which requires so much work to correct because it is that far off track that you lose the audience explaining what really happened. In fact, I'm pretty sure you don't give a shit what I just said and will respond poorly because you aren't interested in what really happened. "Your team" scored a touchdown and that's about as much effort you are willing to put into it. Wait...What? Scarlett Johansson is a Jew? She doesn't look like one. On her mother's side So it counts. Scarlett Johansson can be whatever she wants. Brown referenced Native Brown referenced Native Americans as being persons of color. I had never heard this before. Can anyone clarify this? I'm not being snarky here. It seemed like a strange thing for Brown to say, especially when he followed up that remark with a comment something to the effect of you could look at Warren and tell it wasn't true. Something just seemed off about it. Brown said it almost with a sneer. The coverage of the debate on Fox25 this morning focused primarily on the Native American issue. Why is this such an issue for conservatives? I would have thought the focus would have been on the economy for Republicans, at least that's what they seem to claim. asbestos thing Also seems to be the new front. Which perplexes me, because it's pretty clear cut that Warren was not involved when the trust fund she set up to pay victims was dissolved. The Brown campaign is welcome to their opinions, but this one is a clear fact that's not going to work well for them. Still Howie and by fox loving uncle have been posting about it all day, claiming she beat up asbestos victims and stole money right out of their hands. Scott also seemed to really love Obama, and talk up their mutual work. Is an endorsement coming soon? I was also perplexed at his attack on Warrens salary at Harvard. She nuked that smile of his, when she pointed out her first job was teaching for $13,050 or so, she worked her butt off, and made it to the top. Since when is the GOP against hard work and success? If warrens making too much, what does that say about Mr. Romney and Scott Browns friends? Brown was way off the more I think about it. He seems to be crossing his TeaParty and Occupy talking points into a big bowl of WTF. Scotto, never take Dramamine before an important event! Right, a lawyer retained for $250K by an insurance company Is clearly working for the victims suing that insurance company, right? No question about that. Liz Warren (D, Travelers Insurance) was representing the asbestos workers, just like Deval Patrick was representing the mortgagees while working for Ameriquest. Fox, meet hen house. She was hired to set up the already agreed upon Trust. She set it up. Later, when she was no longer there, a judge allowed the company to not pay out damages, a decision that had nothing to do with her work on the case. How the hell is that her fault? Are you guys now claiming that she had access to Obama's magical time machine? If this and the racists attacks on her family are all Scott has left, he's going to be enjoying a nice long vacation soon. Maybe Coakley can have him over for tea? PS, if just working for a company at any point in the past is now a liability, this is going to be a god send for Dems wanting to try Romney to Bain Capital. Founding to present day, Romney will now have to own everything bad that came from that vulture nest. Note to self - Scott Brown's Note to self - Scott Brown's character: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/... They just can't help themselves can they? Why a popular, bi-partisan, effective Senator has to resort to this sort of mud-flinging is telling. He's losing, and it's because he doesn't have a record to run on. At least one that aligns with his claims. Brown was flustered and also Brown was flustered and also trying to portray himself as a democrat. Warren is a good debater but her voice tone hurts her (and would be a loser in national debates Id think). I'm in the bag for Warren, but Brown seemed to not be prepared, was snide and had a weird nervous laugh / studder problems, especially mixing up talking points. Also, since when do hard right GOP talking points jive with your claim to bipartisanship? Starting out the door attacking Warren for Cherokee "gate" also was very bad, you never start negative. I think Brown didn't do himself any favors tonight. I thought the talk of skipping town for senate votes was a munch of bluster, but seeing him so shaky, now I'm wondering if he actually thought that was gonna fly. Yes! I'd like to help Scott Brown out by pointing out to him that if talking about his voting record makes him nervous, he can vote differently. And I was pleased and impressed with Elizabeth Warren's performance. The one thing I wish she had done: point out that her role in the Traveller's Insurance lawsuit was about defending a law that protects claimants like the asbestos victims' rights to claims even if a company says they're bankrupt. Her role with Traveller's Insurance is consistent with her platform. The Fehrnstrom touch was clearly evident tonight.. the only way Brown could do worse is if he hired Jay Severin to run his campaign. I mean, coming out swinging with the Indian nonsense? Wotta maroon! And that non partisan crap he spouts is so tiresome. His vote on the defeated veterans bill yesterday was clearly designed to try and influence the independents and undecided, who I believe will now be in Warren's corner after what I believe to be a disastrous performance by Brown. For Christ's sake if I hear about that fucking truck one more time... Yeah I laughed that he brought the "Truck" out so soon in the first debate. Never a good sign! For Christ's sake if I hear For Christ's sake if I hear about that fucking truck one more time... If I have to listen to that condescending scold for six years... Don't worry... I'm sure after tonight you won't have to hear it much longer. "Scolding Tone" Smart informed women are such a drag, amiright? Oh please, I'm a woman and I Oh please, I'm a woman and I couldn't listen to her talk for longer than 15 minutes. Can you imagine listening to her and Kerry? You'd much rather Scott vote to control your body Than listen to a woman whose voice you don't like. Okay. Maybe you ARE too stupid to decide when you want to have kids. Or, maybe I'm smarter than Or, maybe I'm smarter than you think. What makes you think you know what's best for me? Glad to see you got your lefts talking points about this "war on women". Glad to see they got you to take your eyes off the events in Libya, our soldiers still dying, the economy and the utter failure this administration is. But you've got your "war on women" thing going, Good for You... eyes on it Two needless wars, lives and treasure wasted? GOP! Economy in the gutter, near collapse / great depression? GOP! Want to talk about all the bills in southern states that sticks government between doctors and patients? Look, if you want to stick up for something you think they support, have at it. But lets stop with this painting of the roses red. It's not working for Romney, and it's not working for Brown. Yes Yes, I could listen to Kerry and Warren. I'm a person who cares more about substance than style (see: adulthood; being an informed voter). Globe and Herald accounts Globe: In crucial first debate, Scott Brown challenges Warren's Native American heritage claim. Herald: In debate, Scott Brown hits Elizabeth Warren on Native American heritage. Hmmm so 50 words from Heraldland (to busy meeting Brownie at the bar?) and a good effort by the Globe, who would unfortunately love you to think Cherokee gate was the biggest and most important thing. Long live print media, amirite? Most important point of the debate Made by Brown at the end of the night about voting for a bipartisan Republican or a heavily partisan Democrat. The biggest problem in Washington is nothing is getting done and something needs to change. No matter how you cut the pie - the Republicans are going to win the house (if you believe otherwise - please don't comment here - stay in your own fantasy world). That means we need EITHER a Republican controlled Senate or a Republican president - and I pray like hell we don't get both and god forbid we get four more years of what we've had. So I'm curious - I'm assuming most of the liberals out here are voting for Obama - and honestly I think he'll win. So that means a vote for Warren is a vote for the status quo - is that really what you want? Yes, let's give control of the country back to the idiots who got us into this mess. If you think for one minute that the Republican higher ups didn't consider the fact that Obama's personal approval numbers would push him over the edge to another 4 years, you're the one living in fantasyland. Every single one of the members of the freak show that was the Republican primary field were nothing but sacrificial lambs and you'd have to be blind not to see it. Newt Gingrich? Michele Bachmann? I'm no liberal and I'm not a big fan of Obama, but the election of Mitt Romney would be a disaster for this country. Even his own party knows it, judging by the lukewarm support he's gotten from the likes of party stalwarts like John McCain and Mitch McConnell. Please re-read the post I conceded the presidency to Obama in my post. This is about who controls the senate - the Democrats (status quo) or the Republicans (who can't blame everything on the senate and the president if they control the senate without a veto-proof majority). Please press the restart button and comment on the senate race. I did read your post especially; That means we need EITHER a Republican controlled Senate or a Republican president or I am taking that out of context? Context So I'm curious - I'm assuming most of the liberals out here are voting for Obama - and honestly I think he'll win. So that means a vote for Warren is a vote for the status quo - is that really what you want? If you concede Obama the presidency (and I do) - a vote for Warren means another four years of a split congress and the status quo - unless you have some other way that something gets done with the House and Senate lobbing bombs across the rotunda and Obama standing in the middle saying he wants to walk your dog and wash your car. Point taken but I wouldn't be so sure about the House. Romney's idiocy is dong serious damage to the Republican brand, wouldn't you agree? Joe Walsh isn't helping much either... Romney is a putz But the house is going Republican - it's just not close enough - even with the putz leading the charge. Well see, The statisticians say if Dem's keep up a +3 gap nationally, it's very possible. Plus if the Dem's get within 5-6, it's going to make things a tad more hairy for Speaker Bohener, and probably force more compromise. The filibuster will be dead if the Dems get anywhere close to a majority in the house. False choice Even if we assume a Republican majority in the House, the idea that the Senate needs to be a Republican majority is nonsense. Not only would Democrats be able to break closure votes just like the Senate Republicans do now, but neither chamber would have enough votes to break a veto. All that accomplishes is to make it look like the President is the new roadblock while he is keeping Republicans from raiding what is left of our government. The idea that a pseudo-bipartisan Senator is a good solution is a middle-of-the-road fallacy as well. Right now, we don't need someone like Brown patronizing us while voting against our interests when absolutely critical to his party's plans of ruination. Republicans, like Brown, are united to make the President's policies fail as opposed to progressing things that might make our country succeed. He will vote with Democrats when he's able without upsetting that plan so he can placate the blue state he comes from, but ultimately is more beholden to his party than he is to us. Because Harry Reid is such a better alternative? Do you believe that Harry Reid actually represents our interests, as Massachusetts voters? If so, by all means, vote for Warren. Because when it comes to our interests or Reid's, she's going with Harry every single time. With Brown, we at least have a chance of getting a vote that's not dictated by the Senate President from Nevada. And a true tool. Who wants to be a millionaire? I am not a millionaire. I don't even come close to making $250K a year. Also, I'm a woman. So, yeah, Scott Brown has not represented me. In fact, he has worked against my interests. Harry Reid is a despicable Harry Reid is a despicable person. He doesn't act like a Morman, that's for sure. Ha, Morman Nah, Reid is not a "Morman." Not sure what that is... A Mormon/Merman mashup? That would be awesome! (Hint: angry, content-empty accusations are already open to ridicule. Spelling mistakes just confirm my suspicions about your intelligence.) Sorry for the incorrectly Sorry for the incorrectly spelled work (at work). But, you cannot deny he is an awful person, no? Did you say Merman? "Oh, I'm just wild about HArrrreeey, and he's just wild about ME!" Well see, A safe Dem from librul Massachusetts has a lot more leeway to bring home the bacon, and fight for their constituents because they don't have to worry about money, being primaried, bucking the leadership. My hope was that Brown would realize that he had that leeway with his popularity here at home, but he's utterly failed to live up to his independent, bipartisan claims. On a vote of any importance, where he would make a difference, he's toed Mitch Mcconnell's line hook, line and sinker. It'll be seen if Warren lives up to her promise to fight for the middle and working class, because she will have to pick with her own leadership. But we already know Scotts answer. Analysis correct - conclusion wrong Right now, we don't need someone like Brown patronizing us while voting against our interests when absolutely critical to his party's plans of ruination. Whose interests - so only the interests of the far left represent Mass? If you listen to the debate it's pretty clear there were some very specific pieces of the sausage that he voted against for very particular reasons. That's what I want - not somebody who says "I can't think of a single thing that my party supports that I would oppose. If I'm not mistaken the largest party in Mass is "unenrolled" - not Democrats. Lizzy's running from the left - and if the Dems hold the senate and somehow Romney wins the presidency, they will play the role of the House as obstructionists. The problem with a split congress is that one side can always blame the other. Kind of like last night's game. Right now you have the Pats v. the Ravens and Obama is playing referee with about the same level of skill. If you put one party with a clearer voice controlling the legislature, you know where they stand and you know where the president stands - you can get to Yes as we have here in Mass for most of the last two decades. The way the system in Washington works now you only get to no with lots of finger pointing. Who you gonna believe His lying mouth, or his clear voting record? He doesn't break with the party line, unless it's a vote he knows will fail. It's the oldest trick in the playbook. As for Dems running obstruction, have we already forgot 2000-2008? While they did block some of the GOP's most egregious overreaches, by and far they worked to make sure government was functional. They compromised quite a bit, in the name of getting things done. The current crop of GOP'ers in power have no such desire, because they seem politics as a zero sum game. They win, or America is lost; and they have no plans to split the difference 50/50 in the name of getting things done. Their nihilism knows no bounds. Always cracks me up I talk to my liberal friends and they say things like what you say. Then I talk to my conservative friends and they say what you say, only with the appropriate substitutions - mostly Democrat for Republican and vice versa. If you present a fact that doesn't agree with either side's version, they start telling you the source isn't reliable. Sorry - I'm not buying either side. The Republicans need to get off their high horse social agenda and the democrats need to start getting real about what this country can afford. If you listen to Scott Brown - he may not be as liberal as I am on the social issues - but I figure the courts will eventually sort out things like Roe v. Wade (which is settled law) and DOMA - we tend to get these things right but it takes time. In the meantime Brown tells me he won't pass anything that results in new taxes OR increased spending - good on him for that. If you can find me a Democrat that is a little more liberal on the social side but as strict on spending - I'll vote for him/her. Warren simply has no clue about fiscal prudence. If it's the Globe article I recall, her stat about her policies being 67% more affordable than Brown's ended with a monstrous caveat - there were no price tags on her social programs which were very vague - but any idiot could see that they would cost hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars to an economy already hamstrung by a trillon dollars in annual deficit spending. Stop paying attention to the D or R after people's names and look for people willing to meet in the middle. Brown's not perfect, nobody is. But he's way more moderate that just about anybody on either side. Lizzy would be a disaster for the country and our state. Both parties are bad so vote Republican? Sorry, but I don't buy it. Most complaints about the Dems are 40 year old hogwash that doesn't fit the facts outside of some leftover hippie communes of the 1960's like Northampton or Portland. Meanwhile the GOP has conscripted itself not a 30 year march rightward, and it's not just on social issues. Clinton Balanced the budget and was paying down the debt, Both Bushes (and Reagan) raided the Treasury, while lowering taxes, exploding the debt. The debt hasn't been kind over Obama, but wat is one to expect when the day he took office unemployment was 10% and we were losing 750,000 jobs a month? Obama and the Senate Dems put up over 2 trillion in cuts, including reforms to such sacred cows as social security and medicare, on the table. The GOP balked because tax raises of 3% on those making more than 250K is socialism. Until the Dems go nuts with power and wacky ideas, or until the GOP banishes the sickness running through their party that sees government and taxes as intrinsically evil, I'll be voting for the fiscally sane, socially moderate Dems. as for Warren, are you trying to claim an ex-Republican is a wacky moonbat liberal? Cause I don't see it. Her focus in her work, and now her campaign has always been to level the playing field and support the middle class. Twi thing I can get behind where at every level of government, law has been written to favor the rich and wealthy interests over those of the nation and it's citizens. Untrue (and you aren't voting Republican - you are voting Brown) Clinton Balanced the budget and was paying down the debt, Both Bushes (and Reagan) raided the Treasury, while lowering taxes, exploding the debt. first of all it was the efforts of a Republican Congress that did most of the expense reduction in the 90's - Clinton compromised and signed off on it. Secondly, the study that said Clinton or congress balanced the budget has been debunked based on errors in calculations and assumptions - but that study didn't get much attention in the press. That 2 trillion was over what - a decade maybe more? A) that's a drop in the bucket b) is nowhere near enough and c) these things are so complex when you get in the details it's hard to figure out who's right and who's wrong - you can't just make a simplistic statement like that. Until the dems go wacky with power? What were you doing in November of 2010 - why do you think they got crushed in the elections? Same reason the Republicans got what they deserved in 2006. Taxes are not intrinsically evil - but when they gobble up 25% of the economy - or more - on the federal level alone they are far past out of control and Lizzie wants to pile on (and that 3% thing is a joke - EVERYONE's taxes need to go up if we are going to fix this problem). Hey - i'm fine with the tax increases and I think a lot of conservatives would be too on one condition. They are used to pay down the debt - not redistribute the wealth. Unfortunately the Dems, especially Lizzie have no such inclination. Fiscal sanity, Barack and Lizzie don't belong in the same sentence (and for the record I'm probably voting for Barack - or more precisely some balance in government on the hope that the R's take the senate). Ex Republican gone wacky moonbat - wasn't Reagan once a Democrat? It goes both ways. Lizzie's over the edge. Must not be a level playing field? Black man from poverty is our rich president, black man from poverty is our rich governor, Native American from poverty could be our next rich Senator. Yeah - sucks to be poor in these United States - unless you want to be in government or go to/teach at Harvard. Hmmm - must be pretty unfair in these here Younited States. the study that said Clinton the study that said Clinton or congress balanced the budget has been debunked based on errors in calculations and assumptions make sure you remember this when Kasich is running for president in 4 or 8 years and basing his campaign on balancing the budget in the 90s, this would be a very convenient statement to forget then. also if you are crediting congress and not clinton for expense reduction, are you likewise blaming congress and not obama for the deficits now? So much FUD and not really worth responding to, but I will to this one: Until the dems go wacky with power? What were you doing in November of 2010 - why do you think they got crushed in the elections? Same reason the Republicans got what they deserved in 2006. Mediscare and the Economy. Remember government death panels and medicare going away? Remember going on about the recovery? And what have we got from the house since then? Wasted time and treasure, trying to repeal the ACA 20 times, and hard right legislation that has no support from the rest of Washington or the America people. The house GOP ran on one thing, and very quickly started voting social issues left and right. Fool me once... 2 wrongs don't make a right We can go back and forth - and that's the point - both sides are wacked- I vote for the middle - someone like Scott Brown (who thankfully has sorely disappointed the Tea Party and the Fox News crowd - but apparently isn't fiscally irresponsible enough with the people's money to satisfy the hard core Democrats!). You know the phrase - if you're playing poker and you don't know who the sucker is - You're it. Same goes for political extremists - if you say you're in the middle but one party has it all wrong - you're an extreme liberal if you side with the Dems and an extreme conservative if you side with the Republicans. I have enough friends and family on both sides that I clearly recognize this affliction. He has? MA has two TeaParties, and he seems to be on good terms with one of them. The social conservative TP has issues with him, because his views aren't alined 100% with scripture. Still, he's had some questionable votes (likely in your opinion) that they would have wanted. Hell, just go down the list of his votes. Take away this dressage of bipartisanship and look how he actually voted, and the picture is pretty clear: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/18919/#.U... If the vote would have passed, but was on the opposite side of his party, he voted nay. If it was a procedural vote or was being filibustered, he would vote yea knowing the bill would not pass. That is not bipartisanship, nor being moderate. It's slithering away from you constituents. bipartisan To add to the above, why isn't Brown running on his record Stevil? Why is he complaining about Warrens use of Obama's time machine (the asbestos trust), and her family heritage? Why isn't he running ON his bipartisan record (not his claim)? The answer is because he doesn't have one. Just claiming you're bipartisan and a nice guy isn't enough when your actions don't fit the bill. So instead, like his record, he's pushed to running a disinformation campaign to slight his opponent. Funny thing is it didn't have to be this way, he could have realized the low turnout in 2010, and who his constituents back home were. He could have truly been a NE Republican, and used his cred to get things done. Instead, via his record, we see that he didn't even have the good judgment to realize where he was elected. And he won't win in November because of it. Are we reading the same material? he would vote yea knowing the bill would not pass. I looked at votes where he voted yea and the bill failed and I come up with less than a dozen examples in the past year - and almost none of them really have any direct impact on Mass - like increased funding for a fresh fruit program or extension of trade agreements to certain countries. I said above to Kaz analysis correct, conclusion wrong - I'm not sure I'm following even your analysis (or how you get to that conclusion from this very vague and confusing information unless you do hours/days of work) A lot in common I can see where Stevil and Scott Brown have a lot in common. They both like to pretend to be bipartisan, but if anybody actually pays attention, they're not really. Brown gets special dispensation from his leadership to cast votes across the aisle whenever it doesn't matter, as long as he is there as a backstop when anything important comes up. Stevil pretends to have a balanced view of the candidates, but when it counts he always run to dishonest Republican talking points. Warren is not an extreme liberal. If the Republicans hadn't moved so far right they're in la-la land she'd still be a Republican like she used to be. The entirety of the central political spectrum of America in the fifties through seventies is within the Democratic party now. If Eisenhower ran for president today, the Republicans would call him a Communist. Clinton balanced the budget. The Republicans in Congress helped a little, but not much, and if the Republicans had their way the budget would never have been balanced. The largest factor in balancing the budget was the tax increase Clinton passed in 1993 without a single Republican vote. If that had been stopped, there would not have been a balanced budget. It was the beginning of fiscal responsibility. Bush took Clinton's balanced budget and threw it, and the economy along with it, in the trash, by a massive tax giveaway to the plutocrats on top of two needless wars and all the corruption Halliburton could eat. We will be paying for Bush's profligacy for a generation. One cannot say now that he is voting for a Republican because he believes in a balanced budget without either being ignorant or lying. There is a sucker here, and it's you if you believe what Stevil says. Only one thing worse than someone that doesn't know history Someone that makes it up. Not bipartisan? Really - then tell me - how have I voted in the last 3 elections and how I plan to vote in November - President? Senator? Hint - I tend to be EXTREMELY consistent in my philosophy and your argument would be DOA. Sure thing Yeah, the law professor who has overseen banking fraud and consumer financial affairs committees and written books on bankruptcy law has "no clue on fiscal prudence". Her whole academic and professional life to this point has been to study nearly every level of economic machination from individual to corporation to financial industry...but she has "no clue on fiscal prudence". Stevil, either your bias or your bullshit is showing. Either way, it's not very becoming. Also, "meeting in the middle" is exactly what the conservative right want you to say and hold up as the ideal. Why? Because the loonies and further out on the fringe of their end of the spectrum they go, the more they shift the Overton Window and get their way anyways while you cede ground to the "middle". The "middle" is not always correct solely because it is the middle of two options. If one side wants to split ten apples between the two parties by giving 1 to group A and 9 to group B, and the other side wants to split them 5 and 5, the correct and fairest answer is not to split them 3 and 7 because it's the middle of what both want. The Democrats these days are nowhere close to the most liberal fringe of their party. However, most Republicans are way out there on the edge (ledge?). If Democrats actually wanted a communist economic model, you might have a point at splitting the difference. However, they don't. And continuing to split the difference with the crazier and crazier demands of Republicans is just dragging us further and further from reality and potential solutions that make any sense at all. Shoot me with a Tommy gun -but only 50 bullets please, not 100 Yeah, the law professor who has overseen banking fraud and consumer financial affairs committees and written books on bankruptcy law has "no clue on fiscal prudence". I can't even imagine the connection between writing a book on consumer finance and balancing the budget - except maybe the chapter on balancing a checkbook which I'm guessing isn't included in her book. So let's split the difference at half a trillion? That's like saying please shoot me with a machine gun but only with 50 bullets instead of 100 - and don't forget to say please. Sometimes you have to do without apples when you don't have the money to buy any - or more to the point - the difference between 1 bullet and 100 doesn't make a difference if you end up dead. if the bigggest problem in Washington is getting things done Then Scott Brown is a huge part of the problem with his repeated filibustering with the Republicans. Ha! Maddow's taking Brown to the woodshed right now especially on the bi-partisan crap and his smack down by Harry Reid on the Senate floor today. Can't wait to hear Michele (one L on Facebook!)McPhee's scintillating commentary on the debate in the morning. "Yaaahhh, our buddy Scott really took it to ole Liawatha last night, did ya he-ah?!!" Seeing how I took the day off tomorrow to catch the 70mm version of "The Master" at the Coolidge, I'll also be taking a hit every time Todd Feinburg says the word socialist. Blow by blow John Carroll rewinds the debate: If you picked "bipartisan" for your drinking game, you were knee-walking by 7:13. If you missed the debate, C-SPAN has a copy (click on "WBZ-TV Massachusetts Senate Debate" on the right side to get it to play; ignore the first few seconds showing Mark Zuckerberg). "Drawing a line in the sand" was Brown's tic, "millionaires and billionaires" was Warrens. I missed the first part of the debate but what I watched was awful. Boring, felt like nothing but canned talking points. Brown's decision to use the Native American thing as the opening salvo seems kind of desperate and just a pathetic cheap shot. She didn't make this stuff up--just sounds as if the's no way to prove it one way or another. Just tacky, like if she'd led with "so Scott, back when you posed naked for that magazine..." No way Brown's tic was "Thank you, John" and "Great question". Even on rebuttals, Scott couldn't stop thanking the moderator for pointing at him even though there were only two options to point at. It was maddening. BROWN WON the debate! CONTENT FREE POSTING STIMULUS. RESPONSE.